Report 754
Report #754 Skillset: Beastmastery Skill: Blocking Org: Ebonguard Status: Rejected Feb 2012 Furies' Decision: We do not think the idea of giving beasts a firm blocking, thematically. Problem: Beastmastery Blocking suffers from the RNG. Many (most) skills that blocking can prevent cost no power, so can just be repeated over and over until they successfully bruteforce past it. Block Firm was removed from Beastmaster Blocking as it is supposed to be 'worse than Athletics'. However, it is possible for a Demigod to get very close to this by expanding to size 25, for no power at all. This report is intended to introduce consistency to the skill. Solution #1: Return a 'firm' syntax to beastmaster blocking, costing 5 power. Remove the impact that the owner's size has on a beast's ability to block (default the beast to size 12). Solution #2: Solution 1. In addition, make it only last somewhere between 2 to 5 minutes. Player Comments: ---on 2/10 @ 22:40 writes: Both solutions leave Athletics blocking superior to beastmastery blocking. A time duration would make it constantly draining to keep up (especially at 5p per use). It also does not make much sense that owner's size affects the beast's ability to block. ---on 2/10 @ 22:42 writes: So wait. Why do we need block firm on beasts? ---on 2/10 @ 22:43 writes: Darn, hit the enter key by accident. Anyway, I'd support making a consistent size, but I don't see a compelling reason to give block firm to beastmastery again. ---on 2/10 @ 22:49 writes: It says right in the problem why I feel it is important. Skills that block stops can be done repeatedly for no power cost, meaning that eventually they will work. ---on 2/10 @ 22:52 writes: In addition, a skill already exists (athletics) that is 100% against it. This clearly is not broken. Skills that can be used over and over to try to split up groups -from another room- should have a readily available and reliable counter (even if it is expensive). Beastmaster block firm was once that counter, and I see no reason not to reinstate it as long as Athletics blocking remains superior, as per the decision. ---on 2/10 @ 23:00 writes: Blocking is an important skill to use in quite a few situations. As it is now, getting to size 25 can get you pretty much impossible to bypass, if anything, this is nerfing beastmaster block by making it cost 5 power for the same effect you can get at size 25 currently. This just makes it easier to use for 5p rather than spending time expanding. ---on 2/11 @ 01:33 writes: Solution 1 is good. Any solution that only addresses the application of rider size would only serve to make beast blocking worse than it already is. Sol 1 also has the added benefit of making the ability more viable for non-demigods or those without expand. ---on 2/11 @ 23:02 writes: Adjacent room movement skills are powerful enough to warrant a universal counter in the form of beastmaster block. It makes blocking more viable for nondemis, those without expand, and nonwarriors. I vote for solution 1 ---on 2/12 @ 00:08 writes: I agree that getting block firm back would be a good thing for Beastmastery, especially considering the fact that I find it silly that my 1,000 pound crow isn't being taken into account when I move to block a direction. I would say putting in either the 5p power drop OR the 4-5 minute duration would be warranted for its cost, but not both so as to keep Athletics Block superior to the ability. ---on 2/12 @ 00:19 writes: After investigating more into the mechanics of beastmastery blocking and doing away with some misconceptions I held, I support this report. ---on 2/12 @ 03:35 writes: Solution 1 seems fine, but 5p is too much. Reduce that to 3p (which is still 2p more then athletics, and requiring a beast in the room, which can be killed or separated), and you're golden. ---on 2/14 @ 00:54 writes: I'm fine with 3 power as well, if such is accepted by the higher powers-- 5 power is intended to make it absolutely clear that Athletics blocking is superior, but if they feel 3p does that as well, excellent! ---on 2/14 @ 11:02 writes: Solution 1, and yes to the 3p cost. ---on 2/17 @ 01:20 writes: Supported. Agreed that 3p would be preferable ---on 2/18 @ 10:16 writes: Solution 1 at 3p, definitely ---on 2/21 @ 14:07 writes: I don't see a reason for beast block to cost power. I also don't see a reason why player size should effect beast blocking rate. I'd say instead of the proposed solutions, make beast blocking a standard rate divorced of player size, and increase that a bit instead. 100% blocking isn't needed for beasts. ---on 2/21 @ 14:11 writes: (non relevant comment: Really Viynain? Using IG weights as justification of anything is a bit silly given how we can carry infinite loads and some weights are just plain bonkers) ---on 2/23 @ 16:18 writes: Solution 1 at 3p ---on 2/29 @ 02:54 writes: I put the reason why beast blocking should be able to be relied upon in the problem, do you have any reasoning for your disagreement, Ixion? You had said on Envoys your main complaint was that 'Athletics blocking should be better,' and this report clearly is geared in such a way as to leave Athletics blocking the clear best choice, but allowing others to have access to it. A non-100% block is pointless.